| Part of the series on|
Logic and rhetoric
A Rogerian argument is a type of argument in which one tries to seek a middle ground between two opposing arguments rather than trying to dictate a "winner" unlike in a traditional Aristotelian argument. This kind of argument is largely inspired by the 20th-century American psychologist Carl Rogers. One may "win" in a Rogerian argument by successfully convincing the opponent to consider alternative arguments.
- Rogerian rhetoric
Typical usage in argument
- Person 1: Raises argument
- Person 2: Raises argument
- Person 1 or 2: Creates argument , a 'compromise' of and that typically contains premises from both and
- Person 1 or 2: Argues argument typically using the combined premises of and
As rhetoric versus an argument
Suppose that the Rogerian argument technique is being used on two arguments, and , that are disjoint. That is, . Then, it is impossible to have a formal argument using Rogerian argument techniques; there are no common premises. At this point, the purpose of deploying Rogerian rhetoric is more analogous to a negotiation medium than an argument technique whose purpose is to simply understand the opposing argument rather than trying to change it.
- Excelsior Online Writing Lab (Excelsior College OWL). Rogerian Argument.
- Teich, Nathaniel. Rogerian Perspectives: Collaborative Rhetoric for Oral and Written Communication. Greenwood Publishing Group. 1992.
- Harry Phillips, Patricia Bostian. The Purposeful Argument: A Practical Guide. Cengage Learning. Jan 1, 2011.